Letter to Obama

111 replies [Last post]
Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
kawfi: "Christian"

There are a lot of people in the USA who claim to be "Christians." Also they think our "founding fathers" were Christians!
They were not for the most part. Most of them were Deists----that doesn't make our nation a "Christian" nation. Nor would it if they all had been "Christians."

Deists think God created us and has left us alone to do as we please..Christ was a Jewish Rabbi and not the son of God, they think.

We are never going to have peace if we continue to deny all other religions deserve to have their religion. You accept the bunch of British upper class who wrote (mostly approved it) our Constitution and were Deists, but not any other religion!

Just keep religion out of politics and the trouble will go away.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
OK CHR$

The show is over. Move along.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
cyclist: details

I have no idea why I always have to write an explanation as to the details of arguments on here!
I also have no idea why you want me to move along about "Christian" nation. I'm not saying you can't be a Christian if you so choose, just that others don't need your influence to decide.

Now the voting thing--as to who can vote--this is obviously a racial argument and an argument as to whether one has sense enough to vote the way some want them to vote! That's all.

President Obama's election is a perfect example as to what generations ago wanted to avoid by limiting just who and what could vote.
In one case of many, they thought that if they said only people who were land owners could vote, then the black man or ignorant whites would never be able to vote! Same, except in less numbers, still exists.
They were afraid of anyone being elected who might shift the wealth and power some.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
cyclist

No comment on the old Deist fathers, huh?
You know actually a capital building combined with a White House, and designed on the order of the Pope's residence and the Cistine Chapel wouldn't look too shabby in Washington!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
CHR$

Joe K. is not going to respond.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
You missed one Joe..

how about the.. "For the first time I am proud of my Country" this from Michelle.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Uh, Joe...

I believe it's the U. S. Constitution that treats all religions equally. As for the torture and unlawful detainment without trials, as you say, we live in terrible times, so I guess the Constitution doesn't apply. Is there some right-wing web site I can go to, to find out which Constitutional rights are still valid on a day-to-day basis or will y'all just let me know when it's convenient for you for have the whole Constitution go back into effect?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
When does the Constitution apply to Terrorist?

I was just wondering. You aspire to attach meaning where none exist.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Answer the question, Jeff

Since when does the constitution apply to terrorists that are not on U.S. soil? (or do you Carters love appeasing terroists so much that you just like to make it up as you go along?)

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Now, now Joe

I know how much you hate the Constitution but don't blame me! Blame Madison and Jefferson who probably had acquaintances like you and wanted to protect the populous from them.

The Constitution has been applied to foreigners since it was written, explicitly so since a case in 1816.

Most recently, In Boumedine v. Bush (2008), the Supreme Court determine that enemy combatants held at Cuba and who were non-US citizens captured overseas, had a constitutional right to judicial review of the legality of their detention. The Bush administration argued that Cuba held technical sovereignty over the military base at Guantanamo Bay, and was merely leasing the land on which the base was located to the United States and consequently, the Constitution did not apply. The Supreme Court ruled, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated.

The Supreme Court decided in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned. The ruling was that the U. S. judiciary did have authority and reversed a District Court decision, which held that the Judiciary had no jurisdiction to handle wrongful imprisonment cases involving foreign nationals who are held in Guantanamo Bay.

There are other, older cases. I'll cite them if you want but they won't make you happy.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Jeff

If that's true, then why doesn't Obama close it up and bring his buddies to the U.S. to be tried in court like he PROMISED when he was campaigning?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
If that's true?

I don't make the Supreme Court rulings and they are hardly secret. If you doubt that they are true then I really don't know what to say.

The reason that Obama hasn't closed Gitmo and brought them to trial is that the evidence against some of them is tainted by their being tortured by the Bush administration and he can't take the chance that the evidence against them won't be thrown out. Exactly what my side was predicting the results would be from Rumsfeld and Cheney engaging in war crimes.

Frankly, I don't know what Obama's going to do now. If it were up to me, I'd cut a deal with Karzai and send them back to Afghanistan to stand trial in their courts. I think that would give them a real appreciation of our Constitutional rights.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
B-b-b-b-b-b Bush

It's all Bushes fault - that's all you libs can say.

That's it Jeff - you are completely irrelevent - just like the democrat party.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
deleted

...

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Actually Jeff the Constitution

does not apply to "Citizens" or even people.. It does however apply to Government. It is a document that tells the Government specifically what it can do and what it cannot do. The body tells the government what it can do, and the Bill of Rights tells it what it can't do.

While what you said above is legally true, in reality, non-citizen's rights are NOT protected by the US Constitution. The government cannot completely remove the right of aliens to keep and bear arms, have freedom of expression, etc, but it can greatly restrict those rights almost to the point where they are non-existent.

Interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is therefore arbitrary on the part of Government.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
There is no RIGHT to vote

It is a privilege not a RIGHT. The Constitution sets standards by which STATES must not discriminate.

Jeff Carter son of Jimmy?
You are incorrect.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Observerofu

You're mistaken.

"The Constitution sets standards by which STATES must not discriminate." Yes! and what must not the states discriminate against?

The right to vote.

Is there another answer to what the states cannot discriminate against?

opusman
opusman's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/08/2008
No constitutional guaranteed right

The actual situation is that each state is allowed to determine its own methods of running elections. The only limitations on the states are that they cannot discriminate in administering elections on the basis of race (15th amendment), sex (19th amendment) or age (26th amendment). In fact, the word "vote" is only mentioned in the Constitution in relation to these non-discrimination amendments. Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly give every citizen the affirmative right to vote.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
A distinction without a difference opusman

How can a state have an election without people voting?

Amendment 17: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years..."

What possible way can a Senator be "elected by the people" without the people voting?

scribbler
scribbler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/01/2007
PRIOR TO THE 17th AMENDMENT

The 2 Senators were chosen by each state government.
(Article I, Section 3.)

FYI - Only

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff you should look to the Constitution before you quote it..

"The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to."

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

Recent Comments